CWG on the use of country & territory names as TLDs (CWG UCTN) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CWG on the use of country & territory names as TLDs (CWG UCTN) Presentation in Hyderabad, ICANN 57 Annebeth B. Lange, co-chair for ccNSO

1. Scope and Work Method q Only discussing TLDs at first level q Codes and names based on ISO 3166-1 q Review existing framework q AGB Module 2, 2.2.1.4 q Could the CWG manage to develop a framework all could agree on? q Teleconferences weekly and F2F meetings q Not a PDP – only help to reach consensus if possible and give advice to a later PDP 2

2. Background: ccNSO Study Group q Create a ccWG with mandate to: 1. Assess feasibility of a harmonized framework 2. If feasible develop such a framework q Letter to the ICANN Board from ccNSO Council to exclude country & territory names from second and consecutive rounds until harmonized framework would be developed 3

3. Current status of WG q Interim conclusions 2-letter strings The WG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving q 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained Primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent q with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1) ICANN does not decide what is a country and what is not q q No conclusion 3-letter codes Based on discussions, survey results q Disagreement even cuts across our own community q q No discussion so far on country & territory names Short form q Long form q 4

4. No harmonized framework feasible q In and across Stakeholdergroups divergent views. Some ccTLDs issue with 3-letter codes as gTLDs others none q Same in GAC. q q For some mandate harmonized framework to C&T is too limited: extended mandate needed include other geographical names q Clearer link with policy development processes Should c & t names as TLDs be treated in GNSO PDP? q Should ccNSO have a PDP with this issue? q Or, should we have a CWG with extended mandate with clear link q into PDP? 5

5. Suggestions presented during the discussions in the WG q Status quo – no solution q Allow all codes and names as gTLDs with no restrictions q 3-letter codes on ISO 3166 treated as ccTLDs q 3-letter codes on ISO 3166 allowed as gTLDs q With some restrictions, e.g. support or non-objection from relevant public authority/ccTLD 6

6. Next steps q Decide how the discussion should go forward q Should the last recommendation from Study Group anyway be activated? Should the Council now send the Letter to the ICANN Board from q ccNSO Council to exclude country & territory names until harmonized framework has been developed? q Where should the discussion take place? Discussion on Geographic names + country & territory names q initially part of Subsequent Procedures in GNSO Overlap with IDN ccTLD definition – meaningful representation – q may cause issues and overlap 7

Questions? Annebeth B. Lange Annebeth.lange@uninett.no